Through the centuries, something resembling science — articulated by bespectacled, lettered, elitist academics — has been used to engineer desired societal ends. Call it pseudo or junk science. Call it fraud. Call it whatever you want. A segment of the scientific community is politically driven, so much so that science is no longer a search for truth, but a quest for a “preferred” truth.
The marriage of science with an ulterior motive is nothing new. Big tobacco, back in the 1950’s, hired some scientists of their own to discredit a growing body of solid research showing the health dangers of smoking. They, too, arrived at their own preferred truth, which conveniently helped prevent a decline in sales.
It’s not enough that John Kerry's diplomatic plate is overcrowded with unpalatable menaces like ISIS/ISIL and an epidemic of Ebola that could mushroom to pandemic proportions. As busy as Kerry is, flying around the globe and assembling a coalition of supporters to push back against a terrorist group more vicious and well-funded than any in recent history, he still manages to get his licks in about global warming.
In a recent speech before an assemblage of foreign ministers, he urged that the threat of climate change must be addressed with the same ”immediacy” as terrorism and Ebola. The same immediacy? I hadn’t noticed that this administration has been rushing to take any “immediate” measures with those concerns, either.
Blissfully unaware of how hot the irony burned, Robert Kennedy Jr. yesterday took to a public protest to rail avidly in favor of censorship. The United States government, Kennedy lamented in an interview with Climate Depot, is not permitted by law to “punish” or to imprison those who disagree with him — and this, he proposed, is a problem of existential proportions. Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”
Anti-climate-change marchers took to the streets of Manhattan in the hundreds of thousands over the weekend to demand international action to fight global warming.
The throng would have better advised to parade in downtown Beijing, assuming the Politburo wouldn’t have called out the infantry.
China is the locus of the alleged crime against the planet that is carbon emissions, yet the marchers staged their event in the United States, where prior to last year emissions had been declining (thanks, in part, to the natural-gas revolution, which oddly didn’t get much love from the climate marchers).
Climate change activists are unwittingly supporting one of the greatest moral travesties of our time: the valuing of people yet to be born more than those suffering today.
Rather than focus on helping vulnerable people adapt to real climate change in the present, activists concentrate on mitigation, trying to avert hypothetical events that may, or may not, someday happen.
Compounding the injustice, most climate campaigners oppose developing nations pulling themselves out of poverty through the use of their least expensive and most abundant energy sources: hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Instead, to help prevent future ‘climate disruption’, poor nations are supposed to use wind and solar power, energy sources even rich countries cannot afford.
According to Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only self-professed socialist in the U.S. Senate, the debate over global warming is “over.”
Sanders spoke to PJTV’s Michelle Fields while attending the climate change march in New York City over the weekend.
Fields asked Sanders, “You say that you’re concerned about global warming. Why is that we haven’t seen the planet warming the past 16 years?”
The Vermont senator incredulously responded, “Ohhh don’t tell me, don’t tell me you’re one of those?!”
“No, really!” said Fields. “You’re not going to answer the question?”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sensibly declined to attend yet another climate summit — this time called by Ban Ki-moon for Tuesday in New York under the auspices of the United Nations — which profits handsomely from much-exaggerated climate scares. Chinese President Xi Jinping and German Chancellor Angela Merkel likewise intend to skip the event.
Environmentalists have complained about Mr. Modi's decision. They say rising atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause droughts, melt Himalayan ice, and poison lakes and waterways in the Indian subcontinent.
However, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already had to backtrack on earlier assertions that Himalayan glaciers would be gone within 25 years, and the most comprehensive review of drought trends worldwide shows the global land area under drought has decreased throughout the past 30 years.
Dom Giordano talked to Joe Bastardi, from Weatherbell Analytics, on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT to discuss the People’s Climate March in New York City.
Bastardi said that people are not causing climate change and expects scientific data to eventually back that up.
“The debate on what is going on is over. It is over. Now we just have to see what happens when the Atlantic flips into its cold cycle and the cyclical nature of the sun, whether we return to the temperatures we were in the late seventies as measured by objective satellite readings.”
Those in politics who spend much of their time railing about the dangers associated with anthropogenic climate change will often assert that the public largely shares their concerns about catastrophic climate shifts. You rarely hear from those oft-cited members of the public who are supposedly alarmed by climate change alarmism. Reason Magazine’s Kmele Foster, co-host of Fox Business Network’s The Independents, revealed why that is when he took to the People’s Climate March in New York City this weekend armed with a camera and a microphone.
I confess I have always been wary of intellectuals. They love arcane theories that often have little to do with real life and this is particularly true of eco-intellectuals who have embraced a panoply of lies and claims about the “environment”, “fossil fuels”, “sustainability”, and other notions that permit them to bloviate without once addressing reality.
This has been a week of Eco-propaganda on a global scale. On Sunday there were “Climate Marches.” On Tuesday there will be a U.N. “Climate Summit”, and there will likely be an avalanche of nonsense in the media intended to make us believe we have control, influence, or impact on the climate when it is obvious to the rest of us that we—the human race—have none.
Street marches today are to real politics what street mime is to Shakespeare. This was an ersatz event: no laws will change, no political balance will tip, no UN delegate will have a change of heart. The world will roll on as if this march had never happened. And the marchers would have emitted less carbon and done more good for the world if they had all stayed home and studied books on economics, politics, science, religion and law. Marches like this create an illusion of politics and an illusion of meaningful activity to fill the void of postmodern life; the tribal ritual matters more than the political result. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 21 September 2014